kilobug wrote:If someone cares about my opinion, it is : just don't waste resources on the look of armors. I'm all fine if it's not shown at all, or just one model with armors. Resources are much better used in hundreds of other places in a game.
One model is fine, I suppose; if it's one machine, or generally close variants that wouldn't warrant a different appearance.
The only thing Bethesda seemed to get right in FO4, was the visual appearance and design of the power armor ; and it's how it should have been done in FO3.
I am not a fan of a game giving the ability to wear a thing for tangible benefit
while not showing evidence of it ~whether or not the player likes this... IE. that's part of the cost of wearing it. It's ridiculous to depict a party of adventurers who are wearing bullet proof armor ~and not getting punctured by bullets because of them... while visually appearing in swim suits and no helmets. If they want the bullet proofing, they should [have to] endure the appearance of the armor.
*A better example of this can be made with a fantasy setting, Where an excessively silly looking wizard's robe greatly imbues the magician with significant additional power. So much so that it's worth tolerating the absurd appearance of it, in order to have the [tangible benefit of that] extra power. Being able to turn off the silly appearance ~while keeping that added power seems a kind of cheating to me, and certainly defeats the point of the intentionally silly appearance of the robe ~meant to be obvious, and unmissable. A cost to be paid in exchange for the benefit.
Helmets in Baldur's Gate prevented critical hits... So [hypothetically] if WL3 or another game did it that way... why should they allow the helmets to be invisible, and yet allow the player to keep the benefit of wearing them [invisibly]? Imagine a Conan style fighter who finds that a certain wizard's cap makes him blade-proof ~outright...It's amazing thing, and he wears it; but it's fashioned to like a feathered chamber pot with an ornamental donkey head on the brim... looks ridiculous, and makes problems in conversation with strangers... but he's blade-proof while wearing it. If this were in a game, and the player could just turn off the appearance and display of the potty helmet ~that's an exploit giving the free power of it without the intended [social] cost associated with it.
As an aside: A third example is a bit different, and is not so much about appearance... Power suits like the ones seen in Fallout (all of the series games) are bulky and should prevent the wearer from free movement in tightly confined spaces... (People not clad in a power suit should have a noticeable mobility advantage in a enclosed/cramped terrain). No one should be able to climb down a manhole wearing one of those suits, or walk up rickety attic steps in a burned out building wearing that
kind of hardware. Mechanically there is potential there for map locations where PA suits are impractical (and/or impossible) to wear into them... Like isolated sections of certain sewers, or an area of terracotta roof tops, or a 20" wide alley way between buildings.
*The Chronicles of Riddick
game did this very well.
If the player's party were exploring the [fragile] rooftops while wearing bulky invisible power armor, that would seem to me to be not unlike allowing them to be in an invisible armored troop carrier for the same reason as the not showing the helmets; carrying them on the roof across those terracotta tiles, small arms-proof due to the several thousand pounds of invisible steel plate armor.
**Before thoughts about realism vs. playability trade-offs with the armor restrictions, consider the faction armors in New Vegas, and that the player cannot wear certain ones in certain places (and travel un-accosted). An hypothetical underground sewer map could be [practically] off limits to a bulky PA suit. [Of course depending on the inventory design... If the PC's can fit them in their pockets
before climbing down, that could be a problem keeping the suits out.]